|
Solaris 2.0 posted:The thing is, the Ukrainians get the final say (as they should) on any of this. The US/NATO/EU can’t just tell them they will never be members or can’t have any further integration. They're allowed to apply as many times as they want, but they're not going to get confirmed anytime soon. The final say belongs to NATO's member-states, who must vote unanimously for a state to join the alliance. That's not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry if that sounds like Ukraine doesn't have much agency in this situation, but we need to be real about this. They're a weak state caught between two pretty awful empires that don't want them to join the other's sphere of influence. Their ability to call the shots is limited. If the U.S. wants to help Ukraine beyond just continuing to supply them with weapons, one thing they can (and should) do is withdraw their support for Kyiv's NATO accession. They should instead negotiate a binding agreement that enshrines their neutrality going forward. (emphasis is on "binding," since the Budapest Memo was nothing of the sort) Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Feb 18, 2022 |
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Majorian posted:They're allowed to apply as many times as they want, but they're not going to get confirmed anytime soon. The final say belongs to NATO's member-states, who must vote unanimously for a state to join the alliance. That's not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry if that sounds like Ukraine doesn't have much agency in this situation, but we need to be real about this. They're a weak state caught between two pretty awful empires that don't want them to join the other's sphere of influence. Their ability to call the shots is limited. If the U.S. wants to help Ukraine beyond just continuing to supply them with weapons, one thing they can (and should) do is withdraw their support for Kyiv's NATO accession. They should instead negotiate a binding agreement that enshrines their neutrality going forward. (emphasis is on "binding," since the Budapest Memo was nothing of the sort)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If the U.S. wants to help Ukraine beyond just continuing to supply them with weapons, one thing they can (and should) do is withdraw their support for Kyiv's NATO accession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:putin wants a big foreign policy victory because his present domestic policy is not especially popular. there's no particular reason to think that he's not perfectly sincere about not wanting NATO to expand eastwards. Yeah, it's that combined with that he (accurately) feels like he has an incredibly limited window to influence affairs to his current available degree, as legacy petrostate and corruption issues catch up fast
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Hear hear. The greatest thing NATO lacks these days is a few buffer states; Russia already has plenty with China through Central Asia. The thing is the recent political changes in Ukraine have been brought up by young people who don't want to be closer to Russia for both economic and social reasons. Refusing to let them into NATO, the EU or develop these relationships simply because it removes the "buffer state" is well... kind of lovely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:So the US withdrawing support for Ukraine joining a defensive alliance that is de-facto lead by the US is helping???? I can empathise with your position but that does not help Ukraine. Ukraine wants to be part of the EU and Russia has limited tools ie. hard power, to prevent this process. Maybe Russia has less agency than you presume over Ukrainian internal matters? The U.S. should acknowledge the truth. Ukraine is not going to get a unanimous vote to join NATO, because a number of existing NATO member-states do not want to risk getting dragged into a war with Russia. Promising them membership when we knew Germany and France would never vote in favor of it was a stupid move by the Bush Administration. It pinned a target on Ukraine's back while providing them with no protection whatsoever. So the best thing that Ukraine can hope for at this point is guaranteed neutrality under a binding agreement. In the meantime, as long as Russia can prop up the LPR and DPR, they can keep Ukraine from being able to join the EU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
Ukraine was already a target tho, hence the Russian installed govt that got overthrown by the people, forcing the Russians to invade to protect the last of their naval bases in the area. Not sure what NATO has to do with those. Man Russia looks weak right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
CareyB posted:Ukraine was already a target tho, hence the Russian installed govt that got overthrown by the people, forcing the Russians to invade to protect the last of their naval bases in the area. The U.S. promised Ukraine membership into NATO in 2008, long before the Maidan uprising or the Crimea incident. NATO is a factor in this conversation because Ukraine seeking NATO membership is one of the reasons why Russia has stepped up the pressure on them over the past decade and a half.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Bloo blooo president bush said they’d be able to join nato so we had to step the pressure up for a decade and a half. That’s how piss weak Russia is, guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
There was no realistic chance of joining NATO being politically popular in Ukraine before 2014 (both overall, and because residents of Crimea would have raised too much of a stink). Of course, Putin probably has no understanding of how democracies function.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
Yeah, can you imagine if Russia didn’t use its powers of espionage and warfare to enact its will on its neighbors? One might think they would have literally one (1) ally, the PRC - and let’s face it that’s an alliance of necessity. When you are forced to show strength, you are displaying your weakness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:17
|
|
|
CareyB posted:Yeah, can you imagine if Russia didn’t use its powers of espionage and warfare to enact its will on its neighbors? One might think they would have literally one (1) ally, the PRC - and let’s face it that’s an alliance of necessity. They have plenty of allies among Central Asian dictatorships. And batka.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
A region ruled by long-reigning ex-Communist strongmen, good for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:There was no realistic chance of joining NATO being politically popular in Ukraine before 2014 (both overall, and because residents of Crimea would have raised too much of a stink). Of course, Putin probably has no understanding of how democracies function. It seems to me like he's read the situation pretty clearly: democracy isn't really a factor in who does or doesn't get to join NATO. The only votes that matter are those of existing member-states: quote:The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The U.S. should acknowledge the truth. Better to shut him down entirely and force him to confront that following through on his threats will cost him dearly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:In what way and to what end? Everyone, from Biden to Zelensky to Putin, is already well aware that Putin's invasion has effectively nixed any future Ukrainian membership barring drastic unforeseen circumstances. Allowing Russia to extract a plainly unnecessary restatement of that situation, or, worse, a proclamation that Ukraine is somehow barred from NATO would only play into Putin's hands and give him incentive to keep playing hardball to extract greater concessions. We've been trying that strategy towards Russia for the past thirty-odd years. Not only has it not worked; it has led us directly to where we find ourselves today. The reality is, the U.S. engaging in a neoconservative foreign policy, trying to expand NATO up to Russia's borders on multiple fronts, withdrawing from multiple arms control treaties, and placing ABMs in former Warsaw Pact states are what play into Putin's hands. He benefits politically (and financially) when we behave like the bogeyman that he paints us as. And there isn't the political will among NATO member-states to make him pay dearly for his actions anyway. If we tell him to go pound sand, he'll come back and do this again next year, and the year after that. He can do this a lot longer than we can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 06:44
|
|
|
we've unfortunatly reached the dashcam stage of the conflict again https://t.me/wargonzo/5824
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The U.S. should acknowledge the truth. Ukraine is not going to get a unanimous vote to join NATO, because a number of existing NATO member-states do not want to risk getting dragged into a war with Russia. Promising them membership when we knew Germany and France would never vote in favor of it was a stupid move by the Bush Administration. It pinned a target on Ukraine's back while providing them with no protection whatsoever. Majorian posted:So the best thing that Ukraine can hope for at this point is guaranteed neutrality under a binding agreement. In the meantime, as long as Russia can prop up the LPR and DPR, they can keep Ukraine from being able to join the EU. Russia is a country falling by the wayside and it is thrashing about in Europe as its former imperial subjects find new alliances and business avenues. It's also happening in central Asia with China. Budzilla fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Feb 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:So Ukraine was never a target until Bush '43 said some poo poo about Ukraine joining NATO? I won't disagree with you there but Georgia wanted to join NATO and there was the 2008 war and the following frozen conflict, now they won't definitely get into NATO. Ukraine had the 2014 Crimea annexation and Donbas invasion and I can safely assume from the Georgia situation and the past 8 years in Ukraine that Ukraine won't get into NATO because it has not resolved its border disputes which is another requirement to get into NATO. That isn't actually a requirement to get into NATO; it is a requirement to get into the EU, though. There was always going to be some level of conflict between Ukraine and Russia after the breakup of the USSR, so I wouldn't say Ukraine only became a target upon GWB overplaying the U.S.' hand in 08. But it certainly helped kick things into overdrive. quote:I don't think you understand the problem. Ukraine is not in a position to be neutral. Very few countries get that choice and it normally doesn't require the consent of other countries. The Ukrainian population largely wanted to join the EU and the public position towards NATO is making neutrality not only impractical but unpopular too. Finland's neutrality was negotiated with the USSR in the aftermath of WWII. I'm not saying that gives Ukraine a blueprint to achieve neutrality, or that it will necessarily happen, but it seems to me like it's the best-case scenario for Ukraine's future. quote:Russia is a country falling by the wayside and it is thrashing about in Europe as its former imperial subjects find new alliances and business avenues. It's also happening in central Asia with China. Russia just signed a $117.5 billion deal with China, and they're probably only going to be more and more aligned over the coming decade. Russia may be a crumbling empire, but I wouldn't underestimate their ability to continue to mess with non-NATO countries along their borders, especially when they have China's (indirect) support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We've been trying that strategy towards Russia for the past thirty-odd years. Not only has it not worked; it has led us directly to where we find ourselves today. Majorian posted:The reality is, the U.S. engaging in a neoconservative foreign policy, trying to expand NATO up to Russia's borders on multiple fronts, Majorian posted:And there isn't the political will among NATO member-states to make him pay dearly for his actions anyway. If we tell him to go pound sand, he'll come back and do this again next year, and the year after that. He can do this a lot longer than we can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We've been trying that strategy towards Russia for the past thirty-odd years. Not only has it not worked; it has led us directly to where we find ourselves today. The reality is, the U.S. engaging in a neoconservative foreign policy, trying to expand NATO up to Russia's borders on multiple fronts, withdrawing from multiple arms control treaties, and placing ABMs in former Warsaw Pact states are what play into Putin's hands. He benefits politically (and financially) when we behave like the bogeyman that he paints us as. Lol what are you talking about? Here is bunch of statements that make no sense and are based on what? How does Putin benefit from any of this? Why can he do it a lot longer than you can? Because you are kinda tired or ..? What is this nonsense. Of course he will try it again, military posturung is the only remaining move he's got exactly because the policy of containment was so effective. Its a desparate move and unpopular internally. Aquiescing to Putin means he gets his concessions and will be back for more. Not aquiescing means he walks away without concessions. But he will be back to screw with the west and/or neighbours either way for as long as he is in power. Get used to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We've been trying that strategy towards Russia for the past thirty-odd years. Not only has it not worked; it has led us directly to where we find ourselves today. The reality is, the U.S. engaging in a neoconservative foreign policy, trying to expand NATO up to Russia's borders on multiple fronts, withdrawing from multiple arms control treaties, and placing ABMs in former Warsaw Pact states are what play into Putin's hands. He benefits politically (and financially) when we behave like the bogeyman that he paints us as. Do the Russian's actually believe that NATO member states plan to invade and occupy Russia? Absent NATO expansion, do you really think Putin wouldn't have attempted to dominate his near abroad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:I'd just like to note that never in the entire history of terror/saturation bombing has it ever achieved any effect on morale other than hardening civilian's resolve that the war must still be fought. It did, once, when the Nazis bombed Rotterdam in 1940. The Dutch surrendered the next day to avoid the same thing happening to Utrecht. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Feb 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who would veto Ukraine joining NATO? I feel like the US would jump at the chance to flip Putin the middle finger. If you asked a random person on the street of most NATO countries what they thought, you'd probably get something like "yeah I've heard of NATO in a movie or something I think. Sure why not."
KillHour fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Feb 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
That’s a really good point actually, how ironic it would be for Russian troops to be put through the grinder against Ukraine whilst NATO mostly sits back and watches, only pre-empting every move through the media.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
CareyB posted:That’s a really good point actually, how ironic it would be for Russian troops to be put through the grinder against Ukraine whilst NATO mostly sits back and watches, only pre-empting every move through the media. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Out of curiosity, who would veto Ukraine joining NATO? I feel like the US would jump at the chance to flip Putin the middle finger. If you asked a random person on the street of most NATO countries what they thought, you'd probably get something like "yeah I've heard of NATO in a movie or something I think. Sure why not." Germany and France for starters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Germany and France for starters. I know nothing about European politics but... why would they care?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:34
|
|
|
CareyB posted:how ironic it would be for Russian troops to be put through the grinder against Ukraine If Russia did a full scale invasion with combined arms the Ukrainian army would pretty instantly be rendered combat ineffective by tactical missiles and overwhelming air superiority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know nothing about European politics but... why would they care? gas and no desire to extend defensive obligations. This is why Ukraine isn't in NATO. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-nato-members-worried-provoking-russia/31249597.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/world/europe/nato-ukraine-russia-dilemma.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:37
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know nothing about European politics but... why would they care? It'd mean that they'd actually have to care. Also similar arguments that were posted in the thread - it's far away, why should they care, potentially less money doing business with Russia, 'deescalation', etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:39
|
|
|
So many drat paywalls but of COURSE it's loving cheap gas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That isn't actually a requirement to get into NATO; it is a requirement to get into the EU, though. There was always going to be some level of conflict between Ukraine and Russia after the breakup of the USSR, so I wouldn't say Ukraine only became a target upon GWB overplaying the U.S.' hand in 08. But it certainly helped kick things into overdrive. quote:In 1995, the Alliance published the results of a Study on NATO Enlargement that considered the merits of admitting new members... Majorian posted:Finland's neutrality was negotiated with the USSR in the aftermath of WWII. I'm not saying that gives Ukraine a blueprint to achieve neutrality, or that it will necessarily happen, but it seems to me like it's the best-case scenario for Ukraine's future. Majorian posted:Russia just signed a $117.5 billion deal with China, and they're probably only going to be more and more aligned over the coming decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:Do the Russian's actually believe that NATO member states plan to invade and occupy Russia? Absent NATO expansion, do you really think Putin wouldn't have attempted to dominate his near abroad? The way I read it, it's less "invade and occupy" and more "contain Russia so that it's so weak that it becomes a client-state of the U.S. (as it sort of did in the 90s)." It didn't just pop up with Putin, either; Yeltsin was pretty vocal about it in the 90s: quote:The biggest train wreck on the track to NATO expansion in the 1990s – Boris Yeltsin’s “cold peace” blow up at Bill Clinton in Budapest in December 1994 – was the result of “combustible” domestic politics in both the U.S. and Russia, and contradictions in the Clinton attempt to have his cake both ways, expanding NATO and partnering with Russia at the same time, according to newly declassified U.S. documents published today by the National Security Archive. quote:In Moscow, Yeltsin berated Clinton about NATO expansion, seeing “nothing but humiliation” for Russia: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.” To answer your second question, it's difficult to say, but I think not. Putin is where he is because he's responding to a very real demand that exists within Russia. That demand is to make Russia into a great power again, and take what they see as the Western boot off their neck. I think Russia was always going to want to have some level of dominance over its neighbors, but I don't think they would have gone about it this way if they didn't genuinely feel threatened by NATO expansion. That's a requirement that has been interpreted extremely loosely throughout NATO's existence, though. France was involved in the Vietnamese revolution when it acceded to NATO, for example. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Feb 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a requirement that has been interpreted extremely loosely throughout NATO's existence, though. France was involved in the Vietnamese revolution when it acceded to NATO, for example. Considering it has to be unanimous, it's not like there would be anyone left to complain if it broke the rules. It would be funny if Russia tried to object to them ignoring their own rules though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:To answer your second question, it's difficult to say, but I think not. Putin is where he is because he's responding to a very real demand that exists within Russia. That demand is to make Russia into a great power again, and take what they see as the Western boot off their neck. I think Russia was always going to want to have some level of dominance over its neighbors, but I don't think they would have gone about it this way if they didn't genuinely feel threatened by NATO expansion. Also, you can induce demand. Would there be this "very real demand" if the Russian state behaved differently? Majorian posted:That's a requirement that has been interpreted extremely loosely throughout NATO's existence, though. France was involved in the Vietnamese revolution when it acceded to NATO, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Russia could literally invade Hawaii and the US wouldn't be able to call on NATO. The US wouldn't need to rely on NATO rules to get Europe to mobilize if that actually happened but I'm still gonna need a citation on that because Hawaii is a state, not an overseas territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 08:03
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The thing is the recent political changes in Ukraine have been brought up by young people who don't want to be closer to Russia for both economic and social reasons. Refusing to let them into NATO, the EU or develop these relationships simply because it removes the "buffer state" is well... kind of lovely. Not to mention that the concept of a "buffer state" with modern technology is about as outdated as worrying about springtime mud. The US invaded Afghanistan just fine despite it being landlocked and supplied only through neither a largely hostile state (Pakistan) or by air. Also the US is never going to invade and try to conquer a nuclear state, so there’s also that the concept of Russia being openly invaded by American tanks has no chance of occurring, buffer or no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Just have both Ukraine and Russia join the EU, then there's no need to have a war over where the internal borders of the EU should be because you can't put checkpoints on them anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a requirement that has been interpreted extremely loosely throughout NATO's existence, though. France was involved in the Vietnamese revolution when it acceded to NATO, for example. VitalSigns posted:Just have both Ukraine and Russia join the EU, then there's no need to have a war over where the internal borders of the EU should be because you can't put checkpoints on them anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 08:10
|
|